Jesus indicated that He, like Moses, was sent by God. His confirmation of this fact to the Jews was that His own flesh was to be given for their spiritual food (as the manna was given for their physical food). Partaking of Jesus' flesh was a cryptic way of saying that one must partake of Christ's sacrifice of His flesh in a spiritual sense, as the Israelites partook of the manna in a physical sense (see vss. 60-63). Jesus was teaching an important truth here in parable. It had nothing to do with being the "bread of life throughout all ages." That is purely Mr. White's assumption that he has read into the text with zero support from the context. I hope you can see the logical fallacy committed here by Mr. White. His circular argument goes like this: He assumes a universal truth (Jesus is the bread of life throughout all ages). He reads that back into the text solely on the basis that Jesus called Himself the "bread of life" (without any reference to "throughout all ages" — the critical point of his argument). He then claimed that Jesus was teaching this alleged universal truth, which Jesus nowhere hinted at!

Ugh. James White is by far one of the most dirty debaters I've ever seen.

You sound like a fan. I've listened to recorded debates. When things aren't going his way, he turns into a baby. He uses slight-of-hand techniques, buckshot apologetics, baiting, etc. All these things dirty debaters use.

   Wow. I've caught the attention of the notorious James White. I would be happy to, James. It's not slander, by the way. It's clearly an opinion. But I will gladly show an example of a sleight-of-hand technique that you used. It was a debate over the Greek word kecharitomene. I apologize that I can't recall the name of the Catholic apologist you debated against, but you probably do.
   The topic of the argument was that kecharitomene proved Mary's sinlessness. It plain and simply does. The argument is irrefutable. However, in an article you wrote on your website, you switched words hoping no one would notice. Since you had no argument on the fact that kacharitomene means "sinlessness", you substituted the root of the word which means "grace". Without the prefix and suffix, charitoo does mean "grace". However, the root of the word was not the topic of the debate. With the prefix ke and the suffix mene included, charitoo does mean "sinlessness". That is what I mean by a sleight-of-hand technique. My opinion holds.

The Dead Sea Scrolls, as well as comments from early church writers, indicate that the first 15 chapters of Acts were probably written first in Hebrew. The Greek would be a translation. Some scholars claim that going back to a "redacted Hebrew" version, based upon word-for-word Greek-Hebrew equivalents, would render Acts 13:48 more like "as many as submitted to, needed, or wanted salvation, were saved." Furthermore, even if "ordained" were the correct meaning, these Greeks still would have had to believe the gospel and accept Christ by an act of their own faith and will, as all of Scripture testifies.

   It is a bit embarrassing because I threw in the comments to which you take exception (and rightly so) rather carelessly. It was certainly not part of my argument nor did it have any bearing on the position I take.
   I offer no footnotes for this brief paragraph because the source or sources are not important and frankly I can't remember where I picked up these ideas. The phrases "were probably written" and "some scholars claim" show that I am not presenting my own opinion gathered from personal research. I am only stating (as something of possible interest for anyone who may wish to pursue it further) that certain people believe this idea. My argument, however, is in no way dependent upon such opinions.
   Certainly, any basis for the idea that the first 15 chapters of Acts were originally written in Hebrew is tenuous at best---but that doesn't matter. The fact that some people (including some scholars) believe this to be the case is all that I stated, but it is clearly not relevant to my arguments. It was not wise to include this brief speculative statement and it will be deleted from the next printing.

   Whoa, where did that come from? Yeah, sure, that's my book, but I really take no responsibility for what appears in it. But hey, keep one thing in mind: no matter how false that paragraph really is, it doesn't impact my arguments at all. I mean, no amount of error in my argumentation can possibly change the fact that I am right. Never forget that. No, I can't even remember where I got that stuff, though, I sure did give some specifics, didn't I? I mean, I mentioned stuff about which I'm actually totally clueless, since I don't read the original languages, and referred to early church fathers--no, I've forgotten who they were, too--and scholars--no, please, I just don't recall even though I put this edition out just recently so it was only a few months ago that I put this together but amazingly, despite my "impeccable research," I haven't a clue what scholars these might be nor do I have any idea where you could actually see this Hebrew version or anything else. And what does it really matter, really? I mean, just because throughout the rest of my book I mention "scholars" and "dozens of verses" and such things, without documenting my claims, doesn't mean that those references are not absolutely true and factual! It's just this one little paragraph that you shouldn't take seriously, and remember, no matter what you say about this paragraph, it means nothing to my arguments. Nothing. My arguments are infallible, err, I mean, are accurate and well researched. In fact, did you know I know more about Calvinism than most Calvinists do? It's true. And I learned it all in a matter of weeks! Hey, have you ever heard of Servetus? Let me tell you about Servetus....

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We constantly monitor White's website and are well acquainted with his statements. In response to White's question as to whether the statement about Acts 13:48 was left in, it has.

Let me make something absolutely clear: I do not consider Dr. Dobson my enemy. Misunderstanding is the enemy. We are both children of the same loving Creator, and I genuinely appreciate the many ways he has helped heterosexual families around the globe. I enjoy listening to his radio program, and I believe he has a sincere heart with an unmatched passion for nurturing and protecting families. But gays and lesbians form loving families too, and his spiritual violence against us must stop. [source]

3 Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?" 4 And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, 5 and said, 'FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH '? 6 "So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."

   God is first and foremost an all loving Father, and any theology which fails to recognize this, in an attempt to maintain the sovereignty of God, is betraying everything that is best in the Christian tradition. Luther dimly recognized this, and attempted, although often unsatisfactorily, to stress the love of God. But not so with Calvin. It is justice and power that are prominent in Calvin's God. The God of the Genevan reformer was a monster of iniquity. He was so bent on justice that he possessed no conscience. He was so concerned about being respected and glorified that He found in Himself neither glory nor respect for men. When men become servants of such a God, they may be expected to set flame to the faggots piled high about the body of a Servetus or preach the sermon of Jonathan Edwards, "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God."
   Hence, we must affirm that Christ is a unitary personality, and this unity we find in his own ego. There is nothing in rational speculation nor New Testament thought to warrant the view that Jesus had two personal centers. We must then think of Christ as a unitary being whose divinity consists not in any second nature or in a substantial unity with God, but in a unique and potent God consciousness. His unity of {with} God was a unity of purpose rather than a unity of substance.
   Concerning the work of Christ the two reformers stressed a substitutionary theory of atonement. They maintained that Christ actually took the place of sinners in the sight of God, and as a substitutee suffered the punishment that was due to men. But all of this is based on a false view of personality. Merit and guilt are not transferable from one person to another. They are inalienable from personality. Moreover, on moral grounds, a person cannot be punished in the place of another.
   Another weakness in this theory of atonement is that it is based on the assumption that the chief obstacle to man's redemption is in the nature of God. But there was never any obstacle to man's redemption in God himself. The real obstacle to man's redemption has always lain in man himself. It is from this standpoint, therefore, that the death of Christ is to be interpreted. Christ's death was not a ransom, or a penal substitute, or a penal example, rather it was a revelation of the sacrificial love of God intended to awaken an answering love in the hearts of men.
   We are compelled, therefore, to reject the idea of a catastrophic fall and regard man's moral condition from another point of view. Man's fall is not due to some falling away from an original righteousness, but to a failure to rise to a higher level of his present existence.
   In the same vein we must reject Luther's and Calvin's view that man is incapable of performing any saving good, and that man can do nothing to save himself. Certainly we must agree that the image of God is terribly scared in man, but not to the degree that man cannot move toward God.
   A final doctrine of Luther and Calvin which needs to be critized is the doctrine of predestination. Any form of mechanical determinism is far from adequate for lasting Christian doctrine. The Kantian "I ought therefore I can" should stand out as a prelude in any Christian conception of man. Any attempt to maintain a doctrine of man devoid of freedom leads us into needless paradoxes.

"It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God" (History of the Church, 6:305).

It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another, and that he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did" (King Follett Funeral Discourse).

As for trustworthiness, which side chose to post private e-mails, even when admonished? I believe the problem, Dr. Ascol, is that the Reformed side has been given a “pass” for too long. When called on it- when faced with the option of actually defending this position, then you balk.

Dear James:
For the last time, are you trying to weasel out of a debate for which we have already agreed?
FOR THE LAST TIME, are you trying to change the agreed format and rules?
FOR THE LAST TIME, for the sake of clarity, are you backing out, running away, or trying to change (in midstream) a debate for which all parties have already settled?
We are preparing to upload your response, and the National Liberty Journal readers- almost 500,000- want to know.
We stand without fear, and without flinching. We are ready.
As for this discussion, I am done. I shall be there, on Monday, Oct 16, either to debate the topic, or lament the fact that your side could not debate without trying to manipulate the proceedings. Let the record show- Emir and I are still ready to debate- as promised.
Jill- please upload this to the LTS website, copy to Dr Falwell, and my website as well.
emc

Dear Dr White:
Good, I am glad to see we shall have the debate. See you then.
emc

John White's

Forgotten Trinity is a brave attempt to defend the non-biblical doctrine of the Trinity. He overlooks without comment the massive evidence which persuades scholarly and other non-Trinitarians that God is one Person, that God is the Father of Jesus the begotten Son (LUke 1:35)(God = the Father 1300 times in the NT and Jesus is given the title in a secondary sense twice for certain-- John 20:28; Heb 1:8.)